Screen 21
The Oxford Student | Friday 20th October 2017
Kingsman 2 repeats the mistakes of its predecessor Alexandra Wall Staff Writer
The sequel to 2014’s wildly popular spy-comedy movie, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Kingsman: The Golden Circle reaches the same highs as its predecessor and rather unfortunately, it also descends to the same lows. Directed by Matthew Vaughn, known for his work on Kick-Ass, Kingsman 2 follows the ever-charming Eggsy, played by rising star Taron Egerton, now an official Kingsman agent going by the codename Galahad in honour of his mentor Harry Hart (Colin Firth). After the world is held hostage by the villainous Poppy (Julianne Moore), Eggsy and the Kingsmen must team up with their American counterparts, the Statesmen, in order to save a large portion of humanity. As with its predecessor, Kingsman 2 is sharp, sleek and hilarious. The opening action scene features a spectacular fight in a taxicab that sets a frenetic pace that continues
Vagueonthehow
throughout the rest of the film. Its characters are instantly likable and its jokes are often clever, one unexpected recurring cameo garnering the most laughs. I went into this film with low expectations and was captivated from its first few frames. It shows London in a beautiful light and will certainly leave British audiences with a sense of patriotism and pride at the lovingly crafted portrayal of what it means to be British. A love letter to British culture from the chavvy beginnings of Eggsy to the upper-class toff Harry Hart, the Americans sadly do not get the same level of appreciation here. The Statesmen, played by Channing Tatum, Pedro Pascal and Halle Berry, whilst bringing a fun presence to the film initially, have little substance, character or indeed charm. Tatum plays little more than a glorified cameo, a stereotypical cowboy who comes off as annoying and quite frankly dumb. Pascal is more of a formidable character, a frequent scene-stealer as Agent Whiskey who is sadly let down by the script in the film’s climax. A rather hamfisted feminist subplot is given to Halle Berry, leading me to assume that its only purpose is to make up for the abysmal treatment
of all of the other female characters in this film series thus far. Likewise, Julianne Moore as the quirky villain Poppy is utterly forgettable. Her motivations however, are not.
The plot and comical tone of the film weaken the overall effect Warning, spoilers ahead! In a strangely political move, the movie attempts to address the war on drugs whilst also aiming pot shots at the American government, featuring a president who is one bad fake tan away from being an exact depiction of the current president of the USA. Poppy is a drug kingpin who has infected the entire worlds supply of drugs with a toxin that will kill those who partake in them unless an antidote is provided - Poppy happens to have all of the antidote and holds the world hostage, saying she will release the antidote if drugs are legalised, allowing her to become a legitimate business woman. The President decides to let the drug users of the world die, leading to the line I’ll be known as the president who won the war on drugs. The convoluted nature of the plot and comical tone of the film weakens the overall effect of this political commentary, rendering it almost useless especially when considering the fact
that the majority of the audience came to see a spy-comedy and not a political statement. Then again, it may be impossible to remove politics from the Kingsman series. The first film featured overt commentary on the class divide in the UK, having stereotypical chav Eggsy rise up and find success in a world full of stereotypically posh British gentlemen, never quite losing his cheeky cockney charm along the way. The only scene that had the potential to ruin this film for me featured a honeypot mission at Glastonbury, which I found particularly distasteful and unnecessary. Eggsy must seduce a target in a scene reminiscent of the infamous princess scene from the first film. And just as in the first film, Vaughn takes the joke too far - objectifying women in a way that I was not expecting to see so overtly on film in 2017. The women in this film are treated appallingly. They are one dimensional, and those who do have developed characters have very little screen time to display them. It would have been a perfect film for me had this scene not occurred and I think many women will feel the same way as I did upon watching it - deeply uncomfortable and completely taken out of the film. If a film can treat the idea of a British gentleman with such reverence-why can it not treat women to the same courtesy? Ultimately, Kingsman 2 is a charming film but one that makes the same unforgivable mistakes as its predecessor.
Top Five: Stephen King films Richard Tudor Screen Editor
With the success of It, the latest Stephen King adaption, take a trip down memory lane through this list of his other stellar works adapted for the screen... 1. The Shining (1980) - Jack Nicholson stars as Jack Torrance, the winter manager of the Overlook Hotel, accompanied by his wife and son, Danny, who possesses ‘the shining’– an ability to see and communicate with the spirits that haunt the hotel. 2. Stand by Me (1986) - Starring a young River Phoenix, Stand by Me is a comingof-age tale which tells the story of four boys walking out of town to find a body knocked over by a train. 3. Misery (1990) – After killing off his most famous character Misery, Paul Sheldon’s car careers off into the snow. Selfproclaimed ‘number 1 fan’ Annie Wilkes pulls him from the wreckage to look after him, but after finding the manuscript, is not best pleased that he has murdered her favourite character... 4. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) – Widely considered one of the best films of all time, The Shawshank Redemption is the story of a wrongly-condemned man’s struggle in prison and his friendship with long-term inmate, Red, played by Morgan Freeman. 5. The Green Mile (1999) – Starring Tom Hanks as death-row corrections officer Paul Edgecomb, the touching story of his experiences on ‘The Green Mile’ and the supernatural influence of one of the inmates was nominated for four Oscars.
Rasmus Nielsen comments on the current state of visual media Theo Davies-Lewis Staff Writer
What’s happening to our media? It’s a question that is asked over and over again. Yes, it’s easy to acknowledge that the traditional framework of news and entertainment media has been changing dramatically over the last two or three decades. The decline in print journalism; unprecedented successes of worldwide television news networks; a gradual emergence of more private services; the dawn of the internet age; an astronomical rise of social media in the twenty-first century: these are all things that most casual observers of the shifting media landscape can recognise through their own media habits, and how they have changed over recent years. But what are the consequences of this? And what are the issues we, as a media community, face going forward? Rasmus Nielsen is perhaps a typical example of changing media habits. In a crowded seminar room at one of Oxford’s colleges, he tells the story of how growing
up in Denmark at the end of the twentieth century meant he only had access to some half-a-dozenor-so newspapers, and had to travel an hour to Copenhagen’s train station or public library to have access to international media.
Admittedly, news is quicker and more accessible than ever before It’s perhaps ironic, then, that Nielsen has become one of the most prominent figures in studying changes in journalism and media. As Director of Research at the Reuters Institute, he has pioneered studies into digital news and the future of television news. Moreover, he has just been named Oxford’s first ever Professor of Political Communication – which could be perceived as a nod from the University’s dons to the increasing importance of our media in such a tumultuous world.
In his seminar, Nielsen covered a wide range of issues which warrant a mention. He is particularly articulate when assessing the problems surrounding supply and demand in the media world. Previously, he notes, in journalism generally there was high market power and low choice when selecting channels; the reverse is now true. As a result, people are more specific about what they pay for, and what they choose to watch, listen, or read to begin with. This makes the competition as ferocious as ever. In addition, Professor Nielsen rightly discussed the complications of the media age. Admittedly, news is quicker and more accessible than ever before, but with more technological advancements and more companies merging under a select few proprietors and tycoons, it is essential that journalist and other media experts lead the way in any changes in the future. This was stressed by the people in the audience – which included a former Times correspondent and a Zimbabwean journalist – as good journalism is driven by the journalists themselves, not
the interests of top executives. Of course, practically, it is difficult to give power to these journalists. All one has to do is look at who calls the shots in Rupert Murdoch’s empire to understand who usually calls the shots. Nonetheless, the media landscape has, and still is, shifting for the better, according to Nielsen. There are issues over fake news, the relevance of television news, and funding packages for organisations, yes. However, if we think of what has happened since the
Sollok29
launch of, for example, CNN in 1980, it has a positive impact on society as a whole. And this is the overarching message from Nielsen. What has happened to our media has been mostly positive changes. More content. Better journalists. Wider and more diverse coverage. It has been good for society, and while we have – as Nielsen puts it – a “rocket ride ahead”, it is only more likely that our creative industries will rise to the challenge as they have done previously.